|
Post by commond on May 9, 2022 18:47:47 GMT -5
I was just paraphrasing Shooter. I doubt he could recall the exact figures, and he probably has Spider-Woman and Dazzler mixed up. Some sources claim the licensing fee for Fu Manchu was a factor in the decision to cancel the book, but who knows. EDIT: All right, someone's done the research about 1983 already -- trendingpopculture.com/best-selling-marvel-comics-of-1983-30-years-later/ Only Uncanny X-Men was selling over 300k an issue, so Shooter is either over-selling how well Marvel was doing at the time, or he didn't make his point very clearly. Perhaps the big-wigs wanted more books selling at X-Men levels. The politics behind which books were cancelled, and which received a lifeline, must have been fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 9, 2022 20:45:12 GMT -5
Dazzler was launched as what was supposed to be a co-promotion, where the other side fell through; but, I have never heard when they tapped out on the live character. So, there was incentive there to carry it along, for a while. DC, similarly, kept the underselling Shazam! going because of the tv series, until the tv series was done and they soon axed it and shoved Captain Marvel into World's Finest.
I've seen some Shooter recollections that have contradicted one another, from different sources. Some of it is memory, some of it reads like spin. Certainly, he has his own perspective for his decisions, though I find his viewpoint is often failure was due to higher ups interfering and success was his doing. That's not a unique perspective and he definitely has an ego, but that is also a facet of most who have been successful, in comics (though the most deserved of having an ego seem to be the ones who were the least to display it).
Personally, I don't think it was the wrong idea to axe MOKF, when it was done and it could be argued it was warranted sooner. For me, as a fan, the Gene Day-penciled issues were the last hurrah and it had been rather tame between that and the previous China Seas epic. In both those cases, Moench was recycling material, with a slight twist. I do think Shooter was not the best person to critique Moench's writing on the series, as pulp adventure has never been his forte. With Archie Goodwin, I think it carried more weight (and respect), though I have no idea how hands on Archie was, as EIC. It sounds like he was so bogged down in running the whole thing that Shooter was more involved in editing anyone without a writer/editor contract (meaning anyone who hadn't been EIC).
|
|
|
Post by berkley on May 10, 2022 1:05:59 GMT -5
This also raises the whole question of what an editor is supposed to do: in this particular context - Marvel/DC superhero comics - one thinks of keeping some consistency in characterisation and other aspects of the ongoing shared fictional universe: and yet at times this doesn't seem to have been as much of a priority as one might expect.
When you get into stylistic guidelines such as how wordy or otherwise a script should be, it seems to me this is often largely a matter of taste. and if your answer to that is something along the lines of "well, this is what our readers want", then that's a sure-fire road to mediocrity, to my mind. Obviously there are limits, and in a shared fictional universe that existed before you, the writer, came along and will be there after you leave, we can expect and accept that the limits will be narrower than in other cases. But once again, that has more to do with continuity and consistency than with individual style.
Getting back to Shooter, I think it's pretty clear that he had an inflated idea of the universality of his personal aesthetic ideals when it came to comics. Perhaps the best example is when he took it upon himself to do the layouts for the Avengers artist who filled in on the Korvac Saga: and if that story is accurate, for me it brings into question his pronouncements on how a writer like Doug Moench should script his comics, especially a series like MoKF that he had been writing to high acclaim for years. Not that a writer, any writer, can't go off the rails at some point, no matter how well they've done in the past, but I'm not sure I'd trust Shooter to know when that point has been reached, at least not every time and in particular not with a series like MoKF that many fans would agree was outside his wheelhouse.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on May 10, 2022 1:24:16 GMT -5
Dazzler was launched as what was supposed to be a co-promotion, where the other side fell through; but, I have never heard when they tapped out on the live character. So, there was incentive there to carry it along, for a while. DC, similarly, kept the underselling Shazam! going because of the tv series, until the tv series was done and they soon axed it and shoved Captain Marvel into World's Finest. I've seen some Shooter recollections that have contradicted one another, from different sources. Some of it is memory, some of it reads like spin. Certainly, he has his own perspective for his decisions, though I find his viewpoint is often failure was due to higher ups interfering and success was his doing. That's not a unique perspective and he definitely has an ego, but that is also a facet of most who have been successful, in comics (though the most deserved of having an ego seem to be the ones who were the least to display it). Personally, I don't think it was the wrong idea to axe MOKF, when it was done and it could be argued it was warranted sooner. For me, as a fan, the Gene Day-penciled issues were the last hurrah and it had been rather tame between that and the previous China Seas epic. In both those cases, Moench was recycling material, with a slight twist. I do think Shooter was not the best person to critique Moench's writing on the series, as pulp adventure has never been his forte. With Archie Goodwin, I think it carried more weight (and respect), though I have no idea how hands on Archie was, as EIC. It sounds like he was so bogged down in running the whole thing that Shooter was more involved in editing anyone without a writer/editor contract (meaning anyone who hadn't been EIC).
It's been a while since I last re-read MoKF but from memory, I'm not sure I'd agree that the series was ripe for cancellation from a creative standpoint. I thought there was some really great stuff during the Zeck era - granted, the best of it happened after Gene Day joined the team as inker, but I wouldn't dismiss the earlier part of Zeck's stint on the book, particularly the Bruce Patterson-inked issues. And then, as you say, when Day took over as penciller, there were some truly classic comics that could stand with the best of the Gulacy era. Yes, the loss, the tragic loss of Gene Day was a terrible blow, but it was so unexpected and the book was cancelled so soon afterwards, that I think it's very hard to say what might have happened if it hadn't been cancelled. We don't even know who the artist would have been, do we? Or do we? I'm not really up on these things, to tell the truth.
I will say that I thought Moench had painted himself into a bit of a corner as far as Fu Manchu was concerned, so that might have been an obstacle going forward. But the book had gone through ups and downs before withoutever making me feel that I wanted to stop reading, let alone that it should be cancelled. Even during relative misfires like the War-Yore storyline with Jim Craig, or the inconsistent artwork (I think mostly due to the ever changing inkers) in the early Zeck issues, it remained an important comic for me - a credit to Moench, because Gulacy's departure was a huge loss that would have killed most series.
Maybe after Day's unexpected death the series would have gone through a similar period of inconsistency and eventually recovered: we just don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 10, 2022 1:42:16 GMT -5
I find in general that writers have a shelf life if 3 years on a title before they lose their motivation. Great writers like moench, wolfman and Claremont stayed too long on their signature books.
|
|
|
Post by Commander Benson on May 10, 2022 7:22:48 GMT -5
Where I stand on this is best expressed by my response to an "Editor's Requirements Vs. Creators' Ideas" thread that ran on the Captain Comics site around ten years ago.
I stated that, if I were the publisher of a comics company, here are my standards for the production of the magazines:
1. I hold the editor ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the magazines under his auspices.
2. In accordance with that ultimate responsibility, I vest ultimate authority in the editor to impose any conditions on the products of his assigned writers and artists.
3. It is also within the editor's authority to replace any writer or artist at his discretion.
4. In any dispute between the editor and the talent, I will support the editor.
5. If any talent threatens to quit due to literary or artistic requirements imposed by the editor, I will support the editor.
6, Any consequences I impose for the failure of a magazine to sell will be strictly upon the editor.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 10, 2022 9:24:58 GMT -5
Sounds harsh. These are people not robots. I have managed people in my job and it’s not easy. People might give you a lesser effort if they are treated badly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2022 9:29:44 GMT -5
Leadership is a balance between setting expectations in a clear but also when necessary firm manner, and having a "people touch" that inspires people to do their best.
The best editors I think have this talent.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2022 9:33:17 GMT -5
On the flip side, I've often found that creative talents come up with some of their best work while they are simultaneously complaining about the leadership/editorial constraints being put on them. I'm not convinced that unlimited "artistic freedom" always yields great results...sometimes the "conflict" ends up pushing creative talents harder in ways they might not have thought of themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Commander Benson on May 10, 2022 9:34:03 GMT -5
How is it harsh? That model leaves it up to the editor to use any leadership style he feels will get the best out of the talent. He can be warm, cuddly Uncle Fluffy with the writers and artists, if it works.
But, the point of my model is: the talent doesn't drive the bus; the editor does, because he's the one tasked with the responsibility. And as the publisher, he's the one I'm going to support.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 10, 2022 9:37:43 GMT -5
The talent drives the bus.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2022 9:37:45 GMT -5
How is it harsh? That model leaves it up to the editor to use any leadership style he feels will get the best out of the talent. He can be warm, cuddly Uncle Fluffy with the writers and artists, if it works. But, the point of my model is: the talent doesn't drive the bus; the editor does, because he's the one tasked with the responsibility. And as the publisher, he's the one I'm going to support. Unless the publisher sees talent walking out the door, highly disengaged, etc. It's a competitive pool of talent out there, and the editor's job is also about retaining, developing, and engaging talent.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 10, 2022 9:47:07 GMT -5
The problem that Shooter inherited was that many of the talented writers were doing the writer/ editor scam. They were taking the money for editing but not doing it.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,709
|
Post by shaxper on May 10, 2022 9:53:23 GMT -5
How is it harsh? That model leaves it up to the editor to use any leadership style he feels will get the best out of the talent. He can be warm, cuddly Uncle Fluffy with the writers and artists, if it works. But, the point of my model is: the talent doesn't drive the bus; the editor does, because he's the one tasked with the responsibility. And as the publisher, he's the one I'm going to support. While this is ultimately a question of personal preference (should the editor or the talent drive the book?), in the case of Jim Shooter, context matters. Prior to his arrival, the Marvel Bullpen had been very loose, with writers often editing their own work. To come in and Mort Weisinger the place was a jarring disruption to the norms of that workplace. A great leader spends their first six months watching, listening, and studying before implementing any sweeping changes. Shooter came in, guns a-blaze. Thus, whether he was right or wrong in his decisions (and I think he was often right), the way in which he went about doing it was disastrous.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2022 9:58:00 GMT -5
I'll maybe say it a different way in terms of the leadership analogy. In my career, I've led people for over 20 years, and some of those people I lead are themselves leaders of people.
They need to know they have my support and are empowered to make leadership decisions. Nobody appreciates a "micromanager". And if they are talented at what they do, that empowerment can lead to them doing their best.
At the same time, there are still some parameters and things I need to stay close to. Having a "blind spot" to problems with a leadership team and potential impacts on workers can happen all too frequently. This means keeping a pulse with team members themselves, getting "outside" feedback on how things are really going, and ensuring my leaders are keeping me apprised of the bigger impactful decisions they are making or planning to make if getting my ok makes sense in cases.
That doesn't mean I don't have some measure of trust with my leaders, or spend all my time trying to "catch them" making mistakes, but again it's also my responsibility to provide appropriate oversight. And that means sifting through imperfect information all day long trying to get a sense of what's fair and where I may need to step in. Or on the more positive side, in other cases where I may need to recognize and reward.
I think of the editor and publisher roles in similar ways.
|
|